VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION
Abuse of discretion
Where the record consists of information substantially different than that before the Director, the industrial appeals judge's disagreement with the determination does not establish that the Director's determination was arbitrary and capricious and thus an abuse of discretion where Director relied upon evaluations and recommendations of qualified, certified vocational rehabilitation counselor, in light of RCW51.32.095. ....Mary Spencer, 90 0264 (1991) [Editor's Note: The Board's decision was appealed to superior court under Grant County Cause No. 91-2-00629-2.]
Burden of proof
To establish that the Director's decision was arbitrary or capricious and thus an abuse of discretion, the appealing party must put forward the same or at least substantially similar factual information as was before the Director. Citing Ritter v. Board of Commissioners, 96 Wn.2d 503, 637 P.2d 940 (1981). ....Mary Spencer, 90 0264 (1991)[Editor's Note: The Board's decision was appealed to superior court under Grant County Cause No. 91-2-00629-2]
Cooperation of worker relevant
In determining whether a worker is likely to benefit from vocational rehabilitation the cooperation of the worker is relevant. Worker who continually fails to appear and cooperate in evaluations designed to assess his physical limitations and need for vocational rehabilitation services is not likely to benefit from such services. ....Todd Eicher, 88 4477 (1990)[Editor's Note: The Board's decision was appealed to superior court under Kitsap County Cause No. 90-2-01106-4.]
Eligibility for time loss compensation distinguished (RCW 51.32.090)
When time loss compensation benefits are ordered under RCW 51.32.095(3) as part of a vocational rehabilitation plan, the standard of review is abuse of discretion. ….Michael Pinger, 97 2210 (1998) [Editor's Note: The Board's decision was appealed to superior court under Grays Harbor County Cause No. 98-01511-6.]
Review of Director's decision that a worker is "employable," and therefore not eligible for vocational rehabilitation services, is limited to whether or not the discretionary authority of RCW 51.32.095 has been abused. However, review of a determination that a worker is "employable," and therefore not eligible for time loss compensation under RCW 51.32.090, is de novo, subject only to a "preponderance of the evidence" standard of review. ....Christine Palodichuk, 90 0252 (1990)
Jurisdiction of Board – See BOARD Moot Appeals
Option 2 benefits under RCW 51.32.099
Selection of Option 2 vocational benefits under RCW 51.32.099 does not preclude a worker from appealing the closing order and proving entitlement to permanent total disability benefits. Selection of Option 2 vocational benefits does not constitute a compromise and release of other benefits. ….Bill Ackley, 09 11392 (2010) [dissent]
[Editor's Note: The Board's decision was appealed to superior court under Kitsap County Cause No. 11-2-00103-4.]
Standard of review – See STANDARD OF REVIEW Vocational rehabilitation determinations
Time loss compensation (RCW 51.32.095(3))
A worker cannot, as a matter of law, receive time loss compensation benefits under RCW 51.32.095(3) unless he is undergoing a formal program of vocational rehabilitation. ....David Potts, 88 3822 (1989)